powerful two-faced masonry fortification wall, which protected a dense
concentration of structures, including one (Building no. 1) that evidently
had administrative functions, rather like the south-west building in the
agoraat Pella. Large numbers of coins, especially copper alloy but also
silver coins, lead weights, and commercial scales were found there. Many
structures had tiled roofs. Some of the tiles were locally made, whilst others
(including tiles stamped with the letter‘A’) were shipped upriver from
south-eastern Thrace. Commercialamphoraefrom Chios, Thasos, Herak-
leia, and the centres producing vessels of the so-called‘Parmeniskos’group
were certainly intended for local consumption, but others were evidently
distributed to centres north of the Hebros that were not accessible by river.
Relative percentages, as at Pella, are based on stamped handles rather than
quantified ceramics, and the period in question spans the second half of the
fifth to the second half of the third centurybc.^99
Imported ceramic provides an indicator of consumption in thefirst
place, but it is also one sort of yardstick, albeit an indirect one, of
commercial patterns. At Adjiyska Vodenitsa trade patterns are reflected
in many other ways too. Metallurgical waste, as well as moulds, tools, and
finished metal items, in precious as well as base metals, indicates the
production of a wide variety of articles on-site, of which at least some
were intended for sale and export. The unusual range of artefact styles
suggests that there was a ferment of creativity at the heart of this
exchange centre.^100
Graffiti from Adjiyska Vodenitsa show that the inhabitants came from
a variety of backgrounds. There are Greek names of broad geographical
distribution, Ionian, Macedonian, and Thracian names.^101 The range of
coins found here points to a similar variety of visitors and local or
regional agents, with local representatives identifiable behind the Thra-
cian regal issues, the most regular visitors shown by Thasian, Parian,
Maronitan, and Chersonesian issues, which are among the commonest
in silver and bronze. More occasional issues, such as those of Ainos,
Kypsela, Sermyle, Kardia, Lysimacheia, Apollonia, and Mesambria
(^99) Tušlova et al. 2010, 205–9; cf. also Bouzek et al. 2007; Tzochev 2007 on Pontic
amphoraeat Adjiyska Vodenitsa; Lawall 2005 on the problems of using statistics based
only onamphorastamps; Taneva 2011 summarizes the evidence from the extra-mural
ceramic kiln.
(^100) See esp. Lazov,Pistiros II, 243–8, on bronzetoreutics; Domaradzki inPistiros II, 249–54,
on‘Celtic’typefibulae;BouzekinPistiros IV, 221–2, for a distinctly‘northern’bronze
appliqué of a lion; Archibald 1998, 138–41 (Adjiyska Vodenitsa) and more generally,
222 – 26, 260–81 for further comments about styles and tastes.
(^101) Domaradzka 2002; 2005; 2007; Domaradzka and Domaradzki 1999.
Regionalism and regional economies 233